by Amaranath Rajakaruna

Except for Ranjit Fernando, all the other commentators were white men of English origin at the Test matches in Galle and Asgiriya. These gentlemen came to Kandy with a grievance. To them, the Galle test was the testimony of biased decisions in favour of Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan umpires. Then they saw B. C. Cooray in action at Asgiriya and soon forgot Galle.

Ian Botham struck a new chord. He wanted everybody to be sympathetic to umpire Cooray and many times pleaded how difficult the task was for Cooray and how we should help the fraternity of Cooray and likes. [This was when Cooray’s rulings had gone against Sri Lanka]. But when England started their second innings and Trescothick was ruled lbw by Cooray, one of them who was commenting at that time was quick to note that Cooray had been threatened for his mistakes and this is how Cooray tries to compensate. Again, Hussain being adjudged caught behind by Cooray is immediately disapproved of. A slow motion replay further convinces them, and they harp on the fact that Hussain is not happy. But when Cooray holds against Sri Lankans on lbw appeals, he makes the difficult but correct decision. These were the exact words used by a commentator when Giles going in the backfoot was hit on the pads in the dying moments of the game close upon the wickets off the bowling of Muralitharan.

A similar appeal around the same time against Giles is turned down by Koertzen. Also, when Koertzen is asked the same question by the Englishmen against left handed Arnold, when he is hit on the front leg as he stretches his long right leg to the maximum to Croft’s off-break from the crease, he is ruled out. No comment is heard from these wise whitemen, on this particular decision.

For once, the blackman in Fernando makes a feeble protest. And the replay of this particular decision is not aired even once for public scrutiny as done many times when there is even a semblance of a doubt concerning decisions against the Englishmen. Also when right-handed Croft putting his short left foot slightly forward to the gentle off-spin of Dharmasena is hit on the pad, is adjudged out by Cooray. For the western commentator, it is only another of Cooray’s decisions.

Far worse than all these is the apologetic defence by these gentlemen of the behaviour of Englishmen when they appealed mightily and their consequent conduct when Jayasuriya was adjudged caught by Thorpe. Forget Cooray, the gullible enforcer, how about the other twelve in the field including the other umpire. The western commentators have the answer.

All eleven English players according to them, appealed in good faith, and Jayasuriya was correctly adjudged out. Would you buy this story? They defend the integrity, good faith and fairplay of the white-cricketers.

Zimbabwe born Hick was caught by Muralitharan off his own bowling. Hick stood his ground for Cooray to do the rest. Could this bunch of gentlemen who have wielded the willow, vouch again that Hick was certain he played the ball to the ground?

However, all these remarks about these western commentators are of no avail, because all these gentlemen solemnly and genuinely believe that they are in fact doing a service to local cricket by coming down all the way to Sri Lanka to give their expert commentaries. They may be right. The duty cast on their Sri Lankan counterparts cannot be expected to be undertaken by them. These English commentators are human and naturally their sympathies are with their own kind.

These men are able communicators discussing at every opportunity the intricacies of the game, and predicting the turn of events with every incident and possible strategies each team should consider before deciding on any move in the field. During their cricketing days, they were about the best in the game. Their presence does not give a fillip to the TV coverage, nor an absorbing experience to the TV viewer, but a bloody tormenting one. Here the best of commentators, with no rivals, dominate and pushes the unsuspecting local cricket enthusiast, to believe that they are unbiased critics of the game. Muralitharan is the prey in this game. They bring out all the theories why an lbw off Murali is an impossibility. Not even the straight one of Murali deserves consideration. Padding the spinning ball and hiding the bat on the pretext of a stroke is a perfectly legitimate ploy to rebut Murali, according to them. Rules of the game can always be twisted.

The torment becomes unbearable as their concerted orchestrated views stand unchallenged by their Sri Lankan counterparts. To correct this imbalance, the Sri Lankan Cricket Board should immediately bring down Ravi Shastri as a commentator to give the picture of what is really happening in the cricketing field. This modern day former Indian captain Ravi Shastri with first hand knowledge of Sri Lankan cricket and its people would be the ideal match for the contingent of British commentators. His presence would bring immediate change in the commentaries as a more rational unbiased picture would emerge of the happenings out there in the middle.